DOCSLIB.ORG

Pityopsis Oligantha (Chapman Ex Torrey & Gray) Small

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pityopsis Oligantha (Chapman Ex Torrey & Gray) Small Common Name: FEW-FLOWERED GOLDEN-ASTER Scientific Name: Pityopsis oligantha (Chapman ex Torrey & Gray) Small Other Commonly Used Names: coastal plain golden-aster, few-headed grass-leaved golden-aster Previously Used Scientific Names: Chrysopsis oligantha Chapman ex Torrey & Gray, Heterotheca oligantha (Chapman ex Torrey & Gray) V.L. Harms Family: Asteraceae/Compositae (aster) Rarity Ranks: G3/S1S2 State Legal Status: Special Concern Federal Legal Status: none Federal Wetland Status: FAC Description: Perennial herb with erect stems 8 - 20 inches (20 - 50 cm) tall, the lower stem covered with silky, silvery hairs; the upper stem with dark, knob-tipped, glandular hairs. Lower leaves 3 - 12 inches (8 - 30 cm) long and up to ½ inch (3 - 14 mm) wide, grass-like, silky-hairy. Stem leaves fewer than 7, much reduced in size and scattered along the stem. Flower heads about 1½ inches (4 cm) wide, 1 - 6 per plant, on long stalks. Each flower head composed of 11 - 16 yellow, strap-shaped ray flowers and 25 - 40 yellow disk flowers in a central disk; the base of the head is surrounded by several series of green bracts forming a cup (involucre) around the base, ½ inch (9 - 11 mm) high, covered with knob-tipped, glandular hairs. Fruits less than ¼ inch (4 - 5 mm) long, dry, seed-like, ribbed, and hairy. Similar Species: Grass-leaved golden-aster (Pityopsis graminifolia) is abundant in dry habitats throughout Georgia. It has more than 7 stem leaves per plant and more than 6 flower heads per stem. The upper stem has few or no glandular hairs, and the lower leaves are usually wider than ¾ inch (2 cm). Related Rare Species: See sandhill golden-aster (Pityopsis pinifolia) on this website. Habitat: Dry to moist longleaf pine-wiregrass savannas and flatwoods, seepage slopes, bogs, edges of cypress ponds. Life History: Few-flowered golden-aster is a perennial herb that reproduces sexually as well as vegetatively by the spread of rhizomes. Its flowers are pollinated by a variety of butterflies and bees and the seeds are dispersed by wind, gravity, and small animals. Survey Recommendations: Surveys are best conducted during flowering (April–May, usually much earlier than other golden-asters) and fruiting (May–June). Range: Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana. Threats: Conversion of longleaf pine-wiregrass habitat to pine plantations, pastures, and developments. Ditching and draining of wetlands. Fire suppression. Georgia Conservation Status: Three populations are known, none on conservation land. Conservation and Management Recommendations: Apply prescribed fire every 2 - 3 years. Avoid clearcutting, ditching, and other disturbances to the ground cover. Selected References: Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. Cronquist, A. 1980. Vascular flora of the southeastern United States, Vol. 1, Asteraceae. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. FNA. 2006. Flora of North America, Vol. 20, Magnoliophyta: Asteridae, Part 7: Asteraceae, Part 2. Oxford University Press, New York. NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Pitts-Singer, T.L., J.L. Hanula, and J.L. Walker. 2002. Insect pollinators of three rare plants in a Florida longleaf pine forest. Florida Entomologist 85(2): 308-316 Semple, J.C. and F.D. Bowers. 1985. A revision of the goldenaster genus Pityopsis (Compositae/Astereae). Biological Series 29. Department of Biology, University of Waterloo, Ontario. Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm Author of Species Account: Linda G. Chafin Date Compiled or Updated: L. Chafin, July 2008: original account K. Owers, Feb. 2010: added pictures .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • Guideline 410 Prohibited Plant List
    VENTURA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 165 DURLEY AVENUE CAMARILLO, CA 93010 www.vcfd.org Office: 805-389-9738 Fax: 805-388-4356 GUIDELINE 410 PROHIBITED PLANT LIST This list was first published by the VCFD in 2014. It has been updated as of April 2019. It is intended to provide a list of plants and trees that are not allowed within a new required defensible space (DS) or fuel modification zone (FMZ). It is highly recommended that these plants and trees be thinned and or removed from existing DS and FMZs. In certain instances, the Fire Department may require the thinning and or removal. This list was prepared by Hunt Research Corporation and Dudek & Associates, and reviewed by Scott Franklin Consulting Co, VCFD has added some plants and has removed plants only listed due to freezing hazard. Please see notes after the list of plants. For questions regarding this list, please contact the Fire Hazard reduction Program (FHRP) Unit at 085-389-9759 or [email protected] Prohibited plant list:Botanical Name Common Name Comment* Trees Abies species Fir F Acacia species (numerous) Acacia F, I Agonis juniperina Juniper Myrtle F Araucaria species (A. heterophylla, A. Araucaria (Norfolk Island Pine, Monkey F araucana, A. bidwillii) Puzzle Tree, Bunya Bunya) Callistemon species (C. citrinus, C. rosea, C. Bottlebrush (Lemon, Rose, Weeping) F viminalis) Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar F Casuarina cunninghamiana River She-Oak F Cedrus species (C. atlantica, C. deodara) Cedar (Atlas, Deodar) F Chamaecyparis species (numerous) False Cypress F Cinnamomum camphora Camphor F Cryptomeria japonica Japanese Cryptomeria F Cupressocyparis leylandii Leyland Cypress F Cupressus species (C.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plant List
    UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plants Below is the most recently updated plant list for UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve. * non-native taxon ? presence in question Listed Species Information: CNPS Listed - as designated by the California Rare Plant Ranks (formerly known as CNPS Lists). More information at http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php Cal IPC Listed - an inventory that categorizes exotic and invasive plants as High, Moderate, or Limited, reflecting the level of each species' negative ecological impact in California. More information at http://www.cal-ipc.org More information about Federal and State threatened and endangered species listings can be found at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ (US) and http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ t_e_spp/ (CA). FAMILY NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME LISTED Ferns AZOLLACEAE - Mosquito Fern American water fern, mosquito fern, Family Azolla filiculoides ? Mosquito fern, Pacific mosquitofern DENNSTAEDTIACEAE - Bracken Hairy brackenfern, Western bracken Family Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens fern DRYOPTERIDACEAE - Shield or California wood fern, Coastal wood wood fern family Dryopteris arguta fern, Shield fern Common horsetail rush, Common horsetail, field horsetail, Field EQUISETACEAE - Horsetail Family Equisetum arvense horsetail Equisetum telmateia ssp. braunii Giant horse tail, Giant horsetail Pentagramma triangularis ssp. PTERIDACEAE - Brake Family triangularis Gold back fern Gymnosperms CUPRESSACEAE - Cypress Family Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey cypress CNPS - 1B.2, Cal IPC
    [Show full text]
  • Heterotheca Grandiflora
    Invasive KISC Feasibility Combined Kauai Status HPWRA Impacts Status Score Score Score Heterotheca EARLY HIGH RISK Naturalized grandiflora DETECTION (14) 6.5 7.5 14 (telegraph weed) Initial Prioritization Assessment Report completed: December 2017 Report updated as of: N/A Current Recommendation for KISC: Pending Ranking and Committee approval Knowledge Gaps and Contingencies: 1) Delimiting surveys near the known location are necessary to ensure it hasn’t spread beyond its known distribution 2) Discussions with the landowner about seed mix and control around agricultural areas and watercourses are needed. 3) The control crew likely needs to be trained to identify this weed. Background Heterotheca grandiflora (Asteraceae) or “telegraph weed” is a large herb sometimes growing over 1m tall that has been accidentally introduced by way of its sticky seeds throughout Hawaii, mainland USA and Australia (Wagner et al. 1999, HPWRA 2015). H. grandiflora has not been considered for control by KISC; the purpose of this prioritization assessment report is to evaluate whether KISC should attempt eradication (i.e. accept “Target” status) or joint control with partnering agencies (i.e. accept as “Partnership” species status). This will be informed by scoring and comparing H. grandiflora to other “Early Detection” species known to Kauai (See Table 5 in KISC Plant Early Detection Report for status terminology). Detection and Distribution Statewide, H. grandiflora is considered naturalized on all of the main Hawaiian islands (Wagner et al. 1999, Imada 2012). However, only one herbarium voucher collected in 1971 (Hobdy 261, BISH) designates its presence on Kauai. An apparently small population near Mana was detected during the 2014 Statewide Noxious Invasive Pest Program (SNIPP) Surveys, and again during 2015-2017 Surveys (Figure C24- 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Choosing a Restoration Plant Palette and Collecting Native Plant Materials1
    Chaparral Restoration Workshop, June 17-20, 2013 Arcadia, CA Guidelines for Choosing a Restoration Plant Palette and Collecting Native Plant Materials1 Katie VinZant2 Abstract One of the first tasks in restoration planning is determining the appropriate native plant species and associated quantities. Species with the greatest prevalence at the restoration site, collectability, heat, sunlight and disturbance tolerance, germination and reproduction rate, large growth habit, soil retention qualities, nitrogen fixation, wildlife habitat value, and weed competitiveness were the main traits considered and desired. After this analysis is completed, a listing of on average twenty different species is generated, along with seeding or planting rates per acre for each species. Once this palette of species is developed, the locations from which the native plant material will be harvested and guidelines for those collections should be determined. Keywords: chaparral restoration, Angeles National Forest, seed collection, native plant palette Introduction Wildland vegetation restoration, especially arid land restoration, requires multi-year planning to ensure that the correct native species are obtained and effectively utilized. One of the first, and probably most important, steps in beginning restoration planning is to determine the native plant species that will make up the planting palette. The palette is a suite of species that are the most appropriate plants to utilize for revegetation purposes. This intention of this paper is to provide guidance on methods for 1) selecting a successful plant palette; 2) determining the amount of seed or container plants needed for a site; and 3) sustainably harvesting wildland seed and cuttings. A “lessons learned” section also highlights challenges that can arise and techniques for moving forward.
    [Show full text]
  • Propagation for the Conservation of Pityopsis Ruthii, an Endangered
    HORTSCIENCE 49(2):194–200. 2014. species listed under the ESA, has outlined recovery criteria for Ruth’s golden aster that highlight the most critical data gaps and Propagation for the Conservation of research needs [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice (USFWS), 1992]. The most recent re- Pityopsis ruthii, an Endangered Species view of the species status cites a continuing need for better ex situ conservation efforts from the Southeastern United States and additional research focused on restora- tion of Ruth’s golden aster in suitable habitat Phillip A. Wadl1 (USFWS, 2012). Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee, Previous ex situ conservation efforts for 2505 E.J. Chapman Drive, 370 Plant Biotechnology Building, Knoxville, Ruth’s golden aster have been focused en- tirely on long-term seed storage (USFWS, TN 37996 2012). Provided seeds are available and Timothy A. Rinehart germinate readily, seed-based methods are often the most efficient means for ex situ Thad Cochran Southern Horticulture Research Laboratory, U.S. Department conservation (Pence, 2011). However, wild- of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), 810 Highway 26 collected Ruth’s golden aster seeds often West, Poplarville, MS 39470 exhibit poor germination and produce seed- lings with low vigor (Clebsch and Sloan, Adam J. Dattilo 1993; Cruzan, 2001; Farmer, 1977; White, Biological Compliance, Tennessee Valley Authority, West Tower 11C-K, 400 1977). To overcome the limitations of prop- West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, TN 37902 agating solely with seed and to provide increased flexibility in ex situ conservation Mark Pistrang efforts, an in vitro propagation protocol was Cherokee National Forest, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Golden Aster Chrysopsis (=Heterotheca) Floridana Small
    Florida Golden Aster Chrysopsis (=Heterotheca) floridana Small he Florida golden aster is a perennial herb in the Federal Status: Endangered (May 16, 1986) aster family with a distribution limited to a few Critical Habitat: None Designated Tcounties in west-central Florida. The Florida golden Florida Status: Endangered aster occurs in sand pine and oak scrub or in disturbed areas at the edges of scrub. Recovery Plan Status: Contribution (May 1999) This account represents South Floridas contribution to Geographic Coverage: South Florida the existing recovery plan for the Florida golden aster (FWS 1988). Figure 1. County distribution of the Florida golden aster. Description Chrysopsis floridana is a perennial herb with stems that are woody toward the base and non-woody above. The plants have basal rosettes (clusters of leaves at ground level) with leaves 4 to 10 cm long, 1.5 to 2.0 cm wide; the leaves of the rosette are densely short-wooly pubescent. The stem leaves are nearly the same size from the top to the bottom of the stem; they are obovate-elliptic, slightly clasping the stem, entire, and densely short-wooly pubescent. The flower heads are grouped into a more or less flat-topped cluster of 1 to 25 heads at the top of the stem. Each head is slightly over 2.5 cm in diameter. Both the central disc and the rays are golden yellow. C. floridana is distinguished from other members of its genus by its perennial habit, the woodiness of its stems, the wooliness and the shape of the stem and the leaves, and the way the flower heads are arranged in a flat-topped cluster (Semple 1981, Wunderlin et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Illustrated Flora of East Texas Illustrated Flora of East Texas
    ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS IS PUBLISHED WITH THE SUPPORT OF: MAJOR BENEFACTORS: DAVID GIBSON AND WILL CRENSHAW DISCOVERY FUND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, USDA FOREST SERVICE) TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT SCOTT AND STUART GENTLING BENEFACTORS: NEW DOROTHEA L. LEONHARDT FOUNDATION (ANDREA C. HARKINS) TEMPLE-INLAND FOUNDATION SUMMERLEE FOUNDATION AMON G. CARTER FOUNDATION ROBERT J. O’KENNON PEG & BEN KEITH DORA & GORDON SYLVESTER DAVID & SUE NIVENS NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY OF TEXAS DAVID & MARGARET BAMBERGER GORDON MAY & KAREN WILLIAMSON JACOB & TERESE HERSHEY FOUNDATION INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT: AUSTIN COLLEGE BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS SID RICHARDSON CAREER DEVELOPMENT FUND OF AUSTIN COLLEGE II OTHER CONTRIBUTORS: ALLDREDGE, LINDA & JACK HOLLEMAN, W.B. PETRUS, ELAINE J. BATTERBAE, SUSAN ROBERTS HOLT, JEAN & DUNCAN PRITCHETT, MARY H. BECK, NELL HUBER, MARY MAUD PRICE, DIANE BECKELMAN, SARA HUDSON, JIM & YONIE PRUESS, WARREN W. BENDER, LYNNE HULTMARK, GORDON & SARAH ROACH, ELIZABETH M. & ALLEN BIBB, NATHAN & BETTIE HUSTON, MELIA ROEBUCK, RICK & VICKI BOSWORTH, TONY JACOBS, BONNIE & LOUIS ROGNLIE, GLORIA & ERIC BOTTONE, LAURA BURKS JAMES, ROI & DEANNA ROUSH, LUCY BROWN, LARRY E. JEFFORDS, RUSSELL M. ROWE, BRIAN BRUSER, III, MR. & MRS. HENRY JOHN, SUE & PHIL ROZELL, JIMMY BURT, HELEN W. JONES, MARY LOU SANDLIN, MIKE CAMPBELL, KATHERINE & CHARLES KAHLE, GAIL SANDLIN, MR. & MRS. WILLIAM CARR, WILLIAM R. KARGES, JOANN SATTERWHITE, BEN CLARY, KAREN KEITH, ELIZABETH & ERIC SCHOENFELD, CARL COCHRAN, JOYCE LANEY, ELEANOR W. SCHULTZE, BETTY DAHLBERG, WALTER G. LAUGHLIN, DR. JAMES E. SCHULZE, PETER & HELEN DALLAS CHAPTER-NPSOT LECHE, BEVERLY SENNHAUSER, KELLY S. DAMEWOOD, LOGAN & ELEANOR LEWIS, PATRICIA SERLING, STEVEN DAMUTH, STEVEN LIGGIO, JOE SHANNON, LEILA HOUSEMAN DAVIS, ELLEN D.
    [Show full text]
  • Seven Plants in Southern U.S. Proposed for Listing
    December 1984 Vol. IX No. 12 Department of interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Technical Bulletin Endangered Species Program, Washington, D.C. 20240 Seven Plants in Southern U.S. Proposed for Listing Seven plants occurring in the south- ern United States were proposed by the Service during Novennber for listing as Endangered and Threatened species. These plants all face the possibility of extinction, but may benefit from protec- tion authorized by the Endangered Spe- cies Act. Pityopsis ruthii Pityopsis ruthii, a plant endemic to Polk County, Tennessee, was first col- lected In the late 1800s by Albert Ruth, a Knoxville botanist, near the Hlwassee River. Commonly referred to as Ruth's golden aster, this plant is a fibrous- rooted perennial that grows only in the soil-filled cracks of phyllite boulders in and adjacent to the Ocoee and Hlwas- see Rivers. Its stems range from one to three decimeters tall and bear long nar- row leaves covered with silvery hairs. Yellow flowers appear in a paniculate Inflorescence in late August and Sep- tember, and fruits develop a few weeks after the flowers fade. Pityopsis ruthii is being threatened by water quality degradation, toxic chemi- cal spills, and water flow regime manip- ulations. The two known populations of this species occur on short reaches of Pityopsis ruthii (Ruth's golden aster) rivers In which water regimes are con- trolled by upstream dams operated by river result in frequent high flow condi- the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). tions that naturally would occur only a Natural water flows in the Hlwassee few times per year.
    [Show full text]
  • An Invitation to Monitor Georgia's Coastal Wetlands
    An Invitation to Monitor Georgia’s Coastal Wetlands www.shellfish.uga.edu By Mary Sweeney-Reeves, Dr. Alan Power, & Ellie Covington First Printing 2003, Second Printing 2006, Copyright University of Georgia “This book was prepared by Mary Sweeney-Reeves, Dr. Alan Power, and Ellie Covington under an award from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of OCRM and NOAA.” 2 Acknowledgements Funding for the development of the Coastal Georgia Adopt-A-Wetland Program was provided by a NOAA Coastal Incentive Grant, awarded under the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Coastal Zone Management Program (UGA Grant # 27 31 RE 337130). The Coastal Georgia Adopt-A-Wetland Program owes much of its success to the support, experience, and contributions of the following individuals: Dr. Randal Walker, Marie Scoggins, Dodie Thompson, Edith Schmidt, John Crawford, Dr. Mare Timmons, Marcy Mitchell, Pete Schlein, Sue Finkle, Jenny Makosky, Natasha Wampler, Molly Russell, Rebecca Green, and Jeanette Henderson (University of Georgia Marine Extension Service); Courtney Power (Chatham County Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission); Dr. Joe Richardson (Savannah State University); Dr. Chandra Franklin (Savannah State University); Dr. Dionne Hoskins (NOAA); Dr. Charles Belin (Armstrong Atlantic University); Dr. Merryl Alber (University of Georgia); (Dr. Mac Rawson (Georgia Sea Grant College Program); Harold Harbert, Kim Morris-Zarneke, and Michele Droszcz (Georgia Adopt-A-Stream); Dorset Hurley and Aimee Gaddis (Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve); Dr. Charra Sweeney-Reeves (All About Pets); Captain Judy Helmey (Miss Judy Charters); Jan Mackinnon and Jill Huntington (Georgia Department of Natural Resources).
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Grasslands
    LONG ISLAND SOUND HABITAT RESTORATION INITIATIVE SECTION 4: COASTAL GRASSLANDS Technical Support for Coastal Habitat Restoration SECTION 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS COASTAL GRASSLANDS ..........................................................4-1 DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 4-1 Maritime Grasses..............................................................................................4-1 Sand Plains ......................................................................................................4-1 Hempstead Plains ............................................................................................4-2 Old Field Grasslands ........................................................................................4-3 VALUES AND FUNCTIONS ........................................................................... 4-3 STATUS AND TRENDS ................................................................................. 4-4 DEGRADED GRASSLANDS AND RESTORATION METHODS.............................. 4-6 SPECIFIC RESTORATION OBJECTIVES ........................................................... 4-7 RESTORATION SUCCESS AND MONITORING................................................. 4-8 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................... 4-9 LIST OF FIGURES SECTION 4 FIGURE 4-1. Newly Seeded Little Bluestem .......................................................4-1 FIGURE 4-2. Farm Field with Common Reed, Shrubs, and Invasive
    [Show full text]